On Judgment

I could nearly even try to stay with the subject today. However, there are a couple of other things I’m going to babble about that are fairly important (like not going to warez, and don’t think everything or maybe anything I write about is third hand, told to me) today, like some fairly obvious moves by the government. It’s been 30+ years since I was even associated with it, so I feel a trifle more secure.

However, this post is about the line between humor and pathos and the ability to judge between. I am absolutely not advising anyone to contact the purported victim in the last link; it could all too easily be a new variation on the infamous 419 scam, which is detailed in the article linked (basically, someone has a lot of money and they’re offering to give you some if you let them have access to your bank account). [As for phishing, it’s easy. If it’s too good to be true, it is. What you miss will be far outweighed by what you gain.]

About a quarter of this country’s [the USA] population is admitted to be poor by the government. Oddly enough, a fraction of them were once in the $100,000 a year plus bracket; football heroes (or whatever), and so forth, although most are functional illiterates. Yet still in the political rhetoric of this country there is a continual referencing to the individual’s worth in terms of wealth–in terms of property, tangible or not. Without the poor there is no wealth, and some I think need wealth as much as others need power. Each separation we make that allows us to disassociate–to tell ourselves that we could never be there or do that thing–is a lie.

Most of the homeless are psychotics who can’t stand to live in places where their living is managed. They’re happier fending for themselves. Most of those who live in cities would have no idea of how to live without the city’s infrastructure. Intelligence is unproven as a virtue. As we have defined it, it amounts to puzzle-solving on a 2-dimensional framework, by means of a mandated referencing system. Use language incorrectly and your message is incorrect. That means that changes to language are actively resisted as threats, and that means that governing entities can never accept change well.